Linux-Advocacy Digest #144, Volume #31 Sat, 30 Dec 00 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Kai Henningsen)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Kai Henningsen)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Kai Henningsen)
Re: Could only... (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 2000 22:22:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike) wrote on 22.12.00 in
<SkB06.317275$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> anything else, is just plain stupid. And, worse, if you don't understand why
> those people made those decisions, you won't ever produce the product they
> want.
It's really very, very simple. (And very ugly.)
The vast number or people buying MS products, buy them for a single
reason: and that is that just about everybody they know also buys MS
products. They don't even *think* about buying something different; in
fact, most probably don't even *know* something different exists.
Producing the product they want is rather easy. You just have to work for
Microsoft.
It really is the name that sells this stuff. Well, the name and the market
position that made people knoe this and no other name.
Sure, there are intelligent buyers out there that you can convince with
facts. Maybe as many as 10%.
Now if you could produce something that looks like Office on Windows,
works just about exactly like Office on Windows, and is exactly data
format compatible with Office on Windows, *and* is cheaper than Office on
Windows even after MS lowers their price, then you might have a chance.
However, experience from DR-DOS shows that the only chance to do that is
to sell pirated copies of Office on Windows, since not only is MS able and
willing to change what you need to be compatible to at the drop of a hat,
they've also proven they're willing to lie about that to the general
public.
And before someone misinterprets me, no, I don't recommend pirating Office
and/or Windows. Bad idea. Really.
No, my recommendation is to simply forget about those people. Concentrate
on the few intelligent buyers. If you can convince them (and I've seen it
happen), then at least you have a chance that the rest will follow.
Slowly. Very, very slowly.
Unless the DoJ or someone like that manages to cut MS down to size,
getting the average Joe away from Windows is going to take 50 years, *no*
*matter* how good your product.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 2000 23:28:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote on 26.12.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:31 +0800, Todd wrote:
> >
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >First of all, that statement is false. I *chose* to use Windows 2000
> >because it lets me do more than Linux by a long shot. Linux is simply too
> >frustrating to use to be useful at this point.
>
> Depends on what you are trying to do with it. Obviously, if you confuse
> it with Microsoft Windows, and try to run MS Office on it, it really
> will be frustrating and difficult to use.
I hear someone's planning to install Linux on his company desktops, put
VMware on those boxen, and install NT4 in the VMware. Poof! Instant remote
adminnable NT desktops. If anything goes wrong, just replace the disk
image with a clean version - everything interesting lives on the Samba
server anyway. *And* you can redirect the NT session to a remote X if the
user needs assistance.
Oh, and since NT then only talks to the VMware simulated hardware, then
whatever hardware you actually use on those desktops, they can have
identical NT installations.
And the power users can get an additional Linux login.
> Likewise, if you try to treat Windows like Linux, you will get nowhere fast.
I see that at work all the time. My desktop is a faster machine than the
server, yet gcc under NT on the desktop is *so* much slower than gcc under
Linux on the server it isn't funny. I might seriously consider a cross
compiler instead.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 2000 23:32:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote on 26.12.00 in
<0aZ16.176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've got a better one for you! I have an old 486-75 laptop made
> > by Toshiba. It has 5 megs of ram on board and a 500 meg hard drive.
>
> There's no such thing as a 486-75. The fastest 486 is a DX2/66. Unless
> your talking about some 486 clone, in which case, it's not a 486. That's
> lie 1.
Bzzzt!
I've had an GenuineIntel 486/100 (yes, with CPUID support) in my box for a
long time. (Which was a slight disappointment, as I actually wanted an AMD
486/133 at the time.)
Thanks for playing.
(I would show the/proc/cpuinfo output, except I've since upgraded to a K6/
2-300. I wonder where my old board is these days - I'm pretty certain it's
still useful, considering we have three slower 486 boxen at work running
Linux just fine, two routers and the backup server ...)
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:43:57 GMT
Overly simplistic and xenaphobic to say the least. Posters/Readers, goto:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_324000/324871.asp
and read some of the comments. Society in American thinks different
when compared to the societies in other countries. Although these types
of things are common in the US, where I live (New Zealand), we as a
country would be horrified, and this issue would have been put on the
top of the list for parliamentry discussion and law reform. I also find
it rather ammusing that so many countries see America as the symbol of
democracy, yet, the government is controlled, not by the people, but by
minority special interest groups using their money and influence to sway
decisions regarding laws to suite their agenda, and large corperations
funding parties (such as the Republicans) to influence the outcome of a
trial, aka Microsoft vs. the DOJ. Before anything regarding gun law
reform happens, the whole legal and political system needs and absolute
overhall, esp. in the area of electing people to parliament/office.
Until these minority interest groups and corperations stay out of
politics and get back to what they should be doing, and that getting on
with life and running their business ethnically and legally, reforms in
necessary areas to protect innocent citizens will never be passed.
kiwiunixman
worldviewer wrote:
> Could only happen in America:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4277328.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
>
>
> http://www.zfree.co.nz
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
____
Unix Programmer:
"If it an't broken, don't fix it"
Microsoft Programmer:
"If it an't broken and working perfectly, then there must be a problem"
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:43:33 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:25:05 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:VQ_26.3724$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > After one year, the Linux users will be running circles around the
> >> > Windows users.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >Because they learn the shell's features for automating repetitive tasks.
> >Nearly
> >anything done in the CLI can be automated by simply putting the same lines
> >you would type into a file, and the variable parts can often be provided
> >at runtime through prompting or some completely automatic operation.
> >
>
> You are making the assumption that they will still be using Linux a
> year from when they start which for the average desktop user is highly
> unlikely.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Mercedes Benz, Volvo, Mazda,
Subaru, Saab, Fiat, Alfa-Romeo, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, and
nearly every other designer for ANY auto or OEM auto-parts supplier
on the face of the earth has been using Unix over 10 years now.
My cousin started as a detailer, he's a designer now. Never took a
day of "unix classes", and yet, that's the platform he prefers.
Why is that.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:46:33 -0500
the_blur wrote:
>
> > Because they learn the shell's features for automating repetitive tasks.
> > Nearly
> > anything done in the CLI can be automated by simply putting the same lines
> > you would type into a file, and the variable parts can often be provided
> > at runtime through prompting or some completely automatic operation.
> >
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Euh...yeah...I'm sure that office workers and cube drones the world over
> will be thrilled when you tell them that. CLI is DEAD. Useful only for
Really. Then why is there such a demand for administrators to keep
writing more (CLI) SCRIPTS for those office workers and cube-drones
to batch-process their work, so that they don't have to spend 3+ hours
of point-click-drool-become-comatose-from-boredom-and-wrist-fatigue
hand-processing each of 200+ files.
> servers and low end computing applications (programming, PINE, that kind of
> telnetable crap). Real work (with the exception of simple programming)
> basically requires a GUI.
Wrong. You've never taken a single programming course, have you?
> Also, if I'm not mistaken the kind of scripting
> you're talking about is available in a GUI, you just have to use it.
Yes..it's true...you really have no clue about how programming works.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:47:50 -0700
> And is the uptime listed for the Netware, or the IIS? Without this
> crucial bit of information, you're still just assuming the numbers are
> no good because you don't like the results. As long as the uptime
> reported is for the Netware box, we don't really care whether its a web
> site or a fire wall, because it doesn't matter.
The uptime is listed for.... drum roll please.... nothing. They can't get
uptime because the firewall is appropriately not providing it. So therefore
it doesn't matter what they report OS wise, there's no uptime reported and
therefore it doesn't affect the accuracy of the numbers at all. We'll put
it in the "one more non-example" category.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:49:51 -0500
Otto wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : > MSFT is a special case. None of the other companies have been
> witchhunted
> : > by the government.
> :
> : None of the other companies operate as a criminal organization.
>
> And you would know that how from you *nix hole?
Unlike you, I am observant of the world around me.
I am fully aware not only of Unix and LoseDOS, but also vms,
cms, S/390, and other operating systems.
You, on the other hand, seem to be only hazily cognizant of anything
not produced by Microshaft-everyone.
>
> : > And, oh yeah, MSFT makes a profit.
> :
> : So does the Mafia...and your point is?
>
> He had a point, yours seems to be out of line which isn't surprising knowing
> the fact that you are stuck on some *nix.
What part of Criminal Activity do you not understand?
>
> Otto
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:51:06 -0700
> I will check the spec in just a few minutes, when I go back on line. I
> suppose I could have delayed responding until I read it, but for some
> reason I was feeling selfish.
I apologize, it was late and the section was long. I was too lazy to read
through it and condense the important points.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:54:11 -0500
Otto wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92ijql$mrj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : While Linux stocks dropped substantially, so did internet stocks.
>
> Most of the internet stocks did not drop as substancially as the Linux
> stocks did.
>
> : Bottom line, corporations have been discovering Open Source and
> : are using consultants and Open Source rather than paying
> : substantially higher prices to have their content plopped
> : into sites by hosting companies have spent $billions on
> : proprietary software and massive arrays of hardware.
>
> Corporations has been slow discovering Open Source and they are even slower
> adopting it.
ITT was "slow" to discover telephony....and so, foolishly sold over
their cable infrastructure (95% at that time) to Bell and his associates.
Which merely demonstrates that those who are slowest to incorporate
the ramifications of new information and ideas into their business
will soon be knocked down several rungs on the ladder, while those
who DO incorporate the new information and ideas will rise to the top.
>
> :
> : Keep in mind that Red Hat, who was the first "Pure Linux IPO" was
> : doing some pretty nutty things. They came back less than 3 months after
> : their initial IPO and issued an identical amount (effectively splitting
> : the stock without a swap). This cut the stock price from $140 to $70.
> : Then a bunch of the employees and "friends and family" bailed out
> : selling nearly half the original two issues, which cut the price from
> : $80 to $40. Finally IBM sold half of it's interest in Red Hat (likely
> : to diversify it's holdings across multiple Linux companies) which
> : dropped the price from $45 to $20.
>
> In short, everybody was dumping Red Hat.
Wrong. It clearly demonstrates that RedHat flooded the market with
new shares, which created a glut of their shares...
>
> : In addition, Red Hat focused on growth by aquisition rather than
> : building on a stable business model and building a stable market.
>
> And that would be different from other less desirable company's accusitions
> how?
>
> : Many of the businesses purchased were already losing money and
> : Red Hat was just grabbing intellectual properties at bargain
> : basement rates. Red Hat also failed to agressively address the desktop
> : market which gave Mandrake (Simon and Shuster) a big jump in overall
> : distribution.
>
> Sounds a lot like what Microsoft has been accused of, including by you among
> other people.
Nothing of the sort. RedHat never tried to block other vendors' sales.
[remaining bullshit deleted]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:53:54 -0700
> >And apparently they are able to write in whatever uptime they wish into
the
> >http header :-(
>
> Ooh, quick, lets spread that "fact" so we can pretend to have refuted
> the numbers (again). It is really pretty amazing how far you
> Micro-softheads are willing to go to spread dis-information.
I think what he's referring to (and wording it poorly, it has nothing to do
with http) has to do with the Windows Uptime.net client. To get over the
49.7 day limitation, when you install the client you get to put in how long
your machine has been up until that point.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:03:07 GMT
There are three companies that sell the type of tool you are looking
for, TurboLinux, Caldera and Redhat. From what I have heard, the
Caldera on is the most refined and professional one available. Before
you make pre-emptive judgments in areas you have absolutely no expertise
in, read a book and study a little on issues outside the Wintel spectrum
and you will find that people will take you seriously, instead of a
pimply faced, prepubescent teenager with a chip on your shoulder.
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:O6c36.52621$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:92jgm4$qgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>>> A single tool has handled all text config files for as long as anyone
>>>> has used them. Actually many tools are useful with them besides
>>>> the editor: diff, patch, cvs, etc. can all be very handy when you have
>>>> several versions to maintain.
>>>
>>> Irrelevent to the discussion, because that isn't what I'm talking about.
>>> I'm talking about making a global config tool, and why it is so hard to
>>
> do
>
>>> so.
>>
>> The text editor is a global config tool.
>
>
> Not for the kind I'm talking about.
>
>
>>> Why is LinuxConf is so popular?
>>
>> Personally, I dislike it and don't understand why it is
>> popular at all. Webmin seems like a much nicer
>> approach to me - it doesn't try to 'fix' all the
>> services whenever you touch any one of them.
>
>
> LinuxConf is just an example, I'm talking about UIing the configurations of
> applications.
>
>
>>> Because it's much nicer to have UI instead of flat text files when you
>>
> try
>
>>> to configure something.
>>
>> Why? If it is something you can automate, why should I touch it
>> at all, and if you can't automate it how does hiding the config
>> file help?
>
>
> It doesn't hide the config file help, the method which I propuse gives you
> the help inside the configurator.
> And who is talking about automation here? How did this came in the
> discussion?
>
>
>>> What I'm propusing would include the bad syntax checking internally, so
>>
>> the
>>
>>> configurator will be able to handle it, and not the application.
>>> See link above, to see what I'm talking about.
>>
>> You can do a certain amount of syntax checking against a DTD or schema
>> but you can't do the hard part: complex relationships with other values
>> that may or may not be part of the same configuration. That leaves the
>> hard part to a human who now has no understanding of what would have
>> been the easy things about the configuration.
>
>
> Dependencies I've not thought about, but never the less, you could still put
> them in the XML file.
> It isn't very hard to do anyway.
> http://www10.ewebcity.com/ayende/lmc.xml
>
> Now contains a possible way to verify dependencies, including comlex ones.
>
>
>> You are back to the basic
>> problem of the GUI - it makes easy things easier and difficult things
>> impossible.
>
>
> Wrong.
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
____
Unix Programmer:
"If it an't broken, don't fix it"
Microsoft Programmer:
"If it an't broken and working perfectly, then there must be a problem"
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
